Conciseness

The body is a lean, imperative checklist with concrete file paths and a compact manifest example; it assumes competence and never explains general concepts. Minor over-explanation in step 9b ("a package that omits it is published, charged for as a team, and can never be called") and the legacy-spelling aside could be trimmed slightly, keeping it just below anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete elements exist — the manifest.json example, the command `scripts/verify-team-package.sh <package-root>`, and specific doc filenames to emit — but many steps give no executable detail: "Encode handoff and return contracts", "Emit runtime adapters and package verification", and "ask an 8-12 question first batch" never specify what the contracts, adapters, or questions look like. This matches anchor 3 (concrete guidance present but incomplete, key details missing) rather than 4.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered procedure (steps 1–11 with 9b) is clearly sequenced and ends with an explicit validation gate — "Run `scripts/verify-team-package.sh <package-root>` before reporting `completed`. If it fails, do not hand off a result" — including two concrete remediation paths. Not a 5 because there are no intermediate checkpoints and several steps are stated at a level the executor must interpret.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is compact (~50 lines) with clear Procedure/Output sections, but it references `contracts/builder-interview-research-gate.md` and `scripts/verify-team-package.sh`, and no `contracts/`, `scripts/`, `references/`, or `assets/` bundle files exist to back them — the references are neither clearly signaled as bundle files nor verifiable. This fits anchor 3 (structure present, references not clearly signaled) rather than 4.

Specificity

"generating or auditing a multi-role agent team package" names two concrete actions and enumerates specific package components ("orchestrator, PM Soul, Memory Curator, Policy Gate, workers, eval, QA, handoffs, and runtime adapters"), giving several specific capabilities with only minor gaps in how the actions are performed. Not a 5 because the actions themselves are limited to two verbs and the component list, while specific, describes artifacts rather than what the skill concretely does with them.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit ("Use when generating or auditing a multi-role agent team package") and the "what" is conveyed by the same clause plus the component enumeration, so both are present in third-person trigger form. Not a 5 because the what is embedded in the when-clause rather than stated as its own capability statement, and the trigger conditions cover only the two verbs rather than concrete user scenarios.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "agent team", "orchestrator", "workers", and "generating or auditing" are relevant, but common natural variations such as "multi-agent", "agent roster", "team package", or file extensions are missing, and product-specific jargon like "PM Soul" and "Policy Gate" dominates the keyword space. It sits above anchor 2 (more than one or two generic keywords) but below anchor 4 (a few natural terms users would actually say are absent).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — packaging multi-role agent teams with named roles like "Memory Curator" and "Policy Gate" — making it mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk against unrelated skills. Not a 5 because generic terms like "package", "generating", and "auditing" leave minor overlap risk with general packaging or auditing skills.